Email this article to a friend

Is the supposed safety advantage of GMO crops over conventional chemical pesticides a mirage?

According to biotech lore, the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) pesticides introduced into many GMO food crops are natural proteins whose toxic activity extends only to narrow groups of insect species. Therefore, says the industry, these pesticides can all be safely eaten (by humans).

However, this is not the interpretation we arrived at after our analysis of the documents accompanying the commercial approval of 23 typical Bt-containing GMO crops.

In our publication, authored along with Madeleine Love and Angelika Hilbeck of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), we show that commercial GMO Bt toxins differ greatly from their natural precursors. These differences are important. They typically cause GMO Bt proteins to be more toxic. Worse, they also cause them to be active against many more species than natural forms of Bt toxins.

Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow are the principal makers of GMO crops intended to kill pests. The vast majority of these GMO insecticidal crops, which include GMO corn, GMO soybeans, and GMO cotton, are engineered to contain a family of protein pesticides called Bt toxins. Such crops may contain up to six different Bt transgenes.

Bt toxins get their name from the bacterial species from which they are originally derived, Bacillus thuringiensis. Biotech seed companies and government officials commonly refer to GMO Bt toxins (which are also called Cry toxins) as “natural”. Commonly also, they state that GMO versions are identical to the Bt toxins used in organic agriculture or in forestry.

But, as we found, GMO Bt toxins are clearly distinct from natural Bt toxins and those used in more traditional farming methods:

3. Parts of Bt toxins are often combined to make hybrid GMO molecules that don’t exist in nature.

4. GMO Bt toxins often have added to them synthetic or unrelated protein molecules.

5. Some are mutated to replace specific amino acids.

6. And far from least, all GMO Bt proteins studied by us were additionally altered inside plant cells. It seems that the GMO crop plant itself invariably creates changes in Bt toxins.

Thus, not a single one of the 23 Bt commercial lines that we analyzed was identical to natural or historically used versions of Bt toxins. All had at least two of the above categories of alterations, but most had many more. To call GMO Bt proteins natural, as biotech companies standardly do, is therefore misleading and scientifically wrong.

Biological and toxicological significance

The biological meaning of these alterations is not discussed in the commercial applications that we studied. However, we found it can be inferred, at least in part, from a theoretical understanding of the toxicity of natural Bt proteins.

It is first necessary to note that the natural Bt molecules produced by B. thuringiensis are non-toxic crystals. The actual toxicologically active protein is a much smaller soluble fragment. To get from one to the other the crystal must first be eaten, then dissolved, then processed by the gut enzymes of a target organism, all in a precise sequence. The exact physiological and enzymatic conditions required for each step are particular to each toxin and quite rare in nature. This requirement for exacting conditions is, in large part, where the toxicological specificity of natural Bt toxins originates.

Once processed in this way, the much smaller but now activated toxin molecule attaches to receptors in the gut and makes holes in its membranes. This causes the victim to be digested from the inside by the contents its own gut, which includes B. thuringiensis.

This complex mechanism of toxicity can be conceptualized as the sequential removal of a series of inhibitory structures that act like the safety catch on a gun or the sheath on a sword. Processing prevents premature or inappropriate toxicological activity such as the making of holes in the bacteria’s own membranes.

The key inference from this understanding is that GMO developers, by solubilizing or shortening Bt toxins, have removed some or all of the inhibitory structures that make natural versions safe for most organisms.

Thus, the standard theory of Bt toxin activation implies that, by creating Bt toxins that are more similar to the toxicologically active form, GMO developers are doing two things. First, they are making each Bt protein more active towards known target species. More worryingly, they are making them potentially hazardous towards an entirely new, though largely unknown, range of organisms. So, while the public explanation for using GMO Bt pesticides is that their toxicity is limited to a few species, this rationale is being undercut by placing them into GMO crops.

Theory only goes so far, however. There is another way to ascertain the effects of the changes made to commercial Bt toxins. That is to measure them. As we show, there are indeed published papers reporting that GMO Bt toxins are more toxic than natural Bt toxins. For example, co-author Angelika Hilbeck has shown that a Bt toxin called Cry1Ab is unexpectedly toxic to neuropteran insects. Researchers in the United States separately showed that the GMO corn MON810 unexpectedly affected caddisflies, whereas non-GMO corn did not. Other researchers have shown that fewer than 14 pollen grains can kill swallowtail butterflies. These and other results strongly suggest that GMO Bt toxins can behave very differently than natural ones.

Patenting supertoxins

A third way to determine the effects of changes made to Bt proteins is to find a patent in which the developer describes in detail the alterations they have made to a commercial Bt toxin, and the increase in potency that resulted from these alterations.

In U.S. Patent No. 6,060,594 Monsanto describes how they made mutations in a natural Bt toxin called Cry3b that made this natural toxin into, in their own words, a “super toxin.” One such super toxin was subsequently introduced to make the commercial GMO corn MON863. Another was used to make GMO corn MON88017. The Bt toxin in MON863 was, according to the patent, 7.9-fold more active than the natural version. These enhanced toxins, claimed the patent, “have the combined advantages of increased insecticidal activity and concomitant broad spectrum activity.”

This finding compellingly supports our contention that altered GMO toxins are more potent in their toxicity and effective against a broader range of species. But Monsanto curiously omitted this information when it applied for a regulatory exemption from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the toxin in MON863. Instead, Monsanto argued that that the Bt protein in MON863 was toxicologically equivalent to the natural Bt protein precursor.

This is a resurfacing of the historic contradiction that has marked biotechnology since its inception. Claiming to be identical to old methods when safety is the issue and novel when the question is patents. It would surely be interesting to sit down EPA and the Patent Office together at the same table.

But that is still not all. As mentioned briefly above, all Bt toxins are further altered by the plants into which they have been introduced. This creates unique toxin molecules that differ even further from natural ones. The biological explanations for these alterations are not clear, they may be specific to individual transgene insertion events, or the cause may be biochemical processing of the Bt toxin inside plant cells. But whatever that explanation, these alterations also may enhance the toxicity of the Bt molecule or alter its range of affected organisms.

To understand this point better it is important to appreciate that all commercialized GMOs represent unique genetic events. Each event has been specifically selected for pesticidal effectiveness in the greenhouse of the developer from among thousands of other, presumably less effective, breeding lines. This selection step creates the probability that a commercial GMO will have unique and unexpected toxicological properties that are responsible for that effectiveness.

Implications and inferences

Our analysis is of importance for many reasons. First are the real-world ecological implications. According to our estimations, a series of independent alterations are creating enhancements in Bt protein toxicity. If each individual enhancement gives rise to a many-fold increase in toxicity, which according to industry data it often does, then the cumulative effect is likely to be very large.

(This is particularly so when the vast quantities of Bt toxins present in each GMO crop field are considered. Not only are Bt proteins present in every cell of each GMO plant, but stacked GMO crop varieties increasingly have many different Bt transgenes. It is easy to imagine that GMO Bt crops may be having large effects on agricultural ecosystems.)

Second, there is a lesson here surely for new generations of biotechnologies. What our paper shows is that government regulators across the globe have opted to assume that Bt toxins, no matter how much they have been altered, whether accidentally or on purpose, have a toxicological profile that is unchanged.

Such an interpretation is highly convenient for applicants wanting to roll out potent novel toxins, but it is useless for protecting public health and the environment. Such disregard of the scientific evidence, laid out in full by us for the first ever time, is part of an unfortunate wider pattern—which we have been documenting—of adoption by GMO regulators of industry-friendly theoretical frameworks and interpretations.

It is the question for our times: How to integrate science into decision-making but ensure it is applied rigorously and impartially and therefore in the public interest?

Jonathan R. Latham, PhD, is co-founder and executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, which is the publisher of Independent Science News (independentsciencenews.org). He has published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, virology, genetics, and RNA biology.

You are the criminal thug thief who stole Ted Miner's pictures off his facebook page to make up these troll sockpuppet account you use to harass and troll people.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-18 16:04:24

You are the criminal thug thief who stole Ted Miner's pictures off his facebook page to make up these troll sockpuppet account you use to harass and troll people.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-18 15:44:38

You are a first class idiot Samsel. Anyone who disagrees with you must be in the pay of Monsanto. This is the sort of conspiratorial thinking that shows you have no grasp of reality. No attempt to rebut any points. You are a pretender with nothing to contribute.

This has got to be one of the biggest speculative pieces of junk science I have ever read. Latham has always been ignorant, Hilbeck is effectively a professional campaigner (she is a member of Seralini's GRIIGEN and of Testbiotech) and Love is an "independent researcher". This last means that they don't have any expertise or a job, but want to pretend. Just like Anthony Samsel.

Posted by TED on 2017-10-17 06:07:54

They are all more qualified than you or kanawai as they are honest.2

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:37:35

So, you found an educated fool that played the race card. Will you be citing al Sharpton next?

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:36:33

You are delusional.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 17:31:27

They are all more qualified than you or kanawai as they are honest, as opposed to you 2.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:26:49

So, you found an educated fool that played the race card. Will you be citing al Sharpton next?

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:24:47

Not only am I smart enough. I am smart enough to understand that both of you went with the ignorance revealing shill gambit.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:03:12

Not only am I smart enough. I am smart enough to understand that both of you went with the garbage shill gambit.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:02:16

The very few that do, do not have the receptors available to them to cause any harm.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 17:01:42

I was referring to your ignorant statement...."The truth is that the BT protein has no effect on critters,us, with acid stomachs. Thus it is digested just like steak or beans",real world results are GMO Bt toxic proteins survive digestion,keep up.

Not only am I smart enough. I am smart enough to understand that both of you went with the garbage shill gambit.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 13:42:13

You are getting upvotes from sex bots, cute!

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 13:28:16

So you can't provide any citations supporting high school dropout Patzagame's claim either!

Thanks for stating the obvious, Ted.

p.s. I wouldn't bother asking not-a-scientist Samsel. He's a phony.

Posted by JoeFarmer on 2017-10-16 12:36:47

And there is the 35 year old lie. Yet again. If that crap was true. It would have been replicated in the past many years and we would have cancer clusters among applicators, if not consumers. Neither has happened. Copying and pasting this over and over only proves your low IQ.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 12:07:24

Confirmed by who?

Monsanto's own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science "inconvenient" and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than the contamination allowed in the food supply.

Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA ... Glyphosate-induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called "Stout and Ruecker" in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far rarer. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, bladder, stomach, and esophagus are all up since the introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 12:03:50

So, you found an educated fool that played the race card. Will you be citing al Sharpton next?

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 12:00:07

More nonsense. The safety record alone means you and the dunce that wrote this article are wrong.

Nope, Rob, I don't troll. I happen to read some articles and comment on them when I feel like doing so. Unfortunately, I keep running into the same band of mis-informed misfits, who, like yourself, do exactly what you just described.

Asking for evidence to back up a preposterous statement is not "regurgitating propaganda and antiscience gibberish." So, do you have evidence to back up Mr. jack's statement? If not, kindly keep out of this conversation.

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 11:48:23

Said the liar with no evidence.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 11:44:07

You heard noting. You just make up the same lie in argument after argument. Only those with brain defects use the shill gambit.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 11:40:47

You just made that up like you always do, lonesome joe. It's all your projections.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 11:38:45

Speaking of fraudsters... how's that 5 cents a post working out for you, Eric? Monsanto pays pretty poorly, I've heard, so they're recruiting sad, antiscience, PR hacks like you now.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-10-16 11:34:37

You are most definitely an industry PR asset. That's why you've been regurgitating industry propaganda and antiscience gibberish for years now. (Trolling social media articles 24/7 and spreading industry propaganda as if it was a full time job will give you away every time, Damo!)

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-10-16 11:33:20

How many industry trolls and antiscience propagandists must we hear repeat antiscience lies and gibberish before we consider this irresponsible, deceitful misinformation a criminal offence? Your antiscience, industry propaganda has been duly noted. You've either been brainwashed, or you're just another industry troll and corporate meat puppet.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-10-16 11:31:36

Hardly ignorant, and hardly a gambit. Calling a spade a spade is no gambit. You've been a biotech/ agrochemical industry spokesperson and propagandist for years, Eric. You're not fooling anyone with your regurgitated PR lines and antiscience gibberish. You have no credibility, and even less personal integrity.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-10-16 11:28:27

More industry propaganda from a well known pro-GMO, pro-agrochemical/ biotech industry apologist and spokesperson. It's pretty clear that the Bt produced by genetic engineering is nothing like naturally occurring Bt. But you agrochemical industry meat puppets refuse to acknowledge actual science and instead regurgitate industry propaganda every chance you get. Remarkable just how corrupt, unethical and antiscience your industry propaganda is...

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-10-16 11:26:39

Of course not. Ted told me he invented the whole thing and there is no evidence. Pretty hard to fight me, when the architect of your entire operation is now telling me all the secrets.

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 11:17:13

So you say. I'm not going to lay out anything for you, headcase.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 11:14:53

Well, I am not a "PR asset" so, how about laying out this proof?

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 10:56:28

There are the verifiable facts, but there is no proof that industry PR assets will accept.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 10:47:28

so, no proof?

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 10:32:45

I know because I am educated about these issues.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-16 10:17:17

Not a Trump supporter. Not racist. Science educated. Work in conservation.

My opinion is that you are an old idiot that can't work a real job, so instead you try and hoodwink the gullible.

Trying to tie GMOs to race, coal, or anything else is disingenuous and really , just pretty crappy.

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 09:59:41

Yeah, I do. He used emotion and not science. Tell him to post some science or keeps his beliefs to himself.

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 09:56:28

"Citation that I am really ted?"

As I have explained many time, the real Ted Miner has had a change of heart and now eats only GMO. He credits his GMO exclusive diet with giving him enough calories to return his brain functions to normal. Now that the real Ted Miner is pro-GMO he is asking for you to stop pretending you are him.

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 09:54:51

Really? And you know this how?

Posted by Damo on 2017-10-16 09:43:59

Why am I not surprised you provide no citations?

Because you make stuff up all the time! Like your imaginary, "degree in biotech".

Posted by JoeFarmer on 2017-10-16 07:32:30

Incorrect, but after many years of safe use pass. Real world Results becomes the important item.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-16 06:18:24

You haven't been keeping up the the research....sigh.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-16 06:09:23

Yep, he is stupid enough to think that indigenous agroecological farming is relevant to BT protein use and also stupid enough to criticize the laureates because many are white. That lowers him into the race baiter class of lowlifes with al sharpton.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 21:01:13

there is your citation. The gates foundation says distributed for free. Whether the censor will let it stay or not is another question.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 20:58:32

That fraudster is so bad that when dishonest folks cite him it actually makes my correct points look even better. But he still is not worthy of any respect.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 20:35:40

Aren't you a clever ahole.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:32:15

Citation for the free distribution? Citation for no negative health effects in the Americas?Citation for the profits would go to the people? Citation that I am really ted?

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:30:19

Or Professor "Rat Torturer", Latin for Seralinieeee

Posted by hyperzombie on 2017-10-15 20:25:59

The African crops are to be distributed to small holder farmers for free. There are no negative health effects in the Americas. Even if there were profits. they would go to people. Thus your slogan is stupid and I don't get paid to oppose liars, like you. I do it just because I want to see progress. You got nothing ted.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 20:22:52

You DA...It's Professor Seralini,not serralini....

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:22:01

You're delusional. There is plenty to suspect GE derived crops. Releasing these crops on Africa is just compounding the health effects unleashed on the North American/South American populace. Profits before people,and you are a paid gmololer, and Ketchum troll.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:18:18

I have no dreaded arch enemy. people like kanawai are not worth the effort of bothering to learn to spell the name.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 20:07:53

""Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”....You got a problem with this?

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:05:34

Could you at least spell your most dreaded archenemy's name correct?

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 20:03:06

Nope, try reading correctly. I was responding the to shill gambit user that played the race card.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 20:00:23

Why would that be my responsibility? There is no reason to suspect GE derived drops. No known causative mechanism. None showed up in the studies. You are just desperate as the truth regarding the safety will become so well known after the African GE crops are released. That you will be even more of a laughing stock than you already are.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 19:59:05

You have nothing...so you pulled the racist play card...pathetic.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 19:50:53

How do you confirm the increase in digestive disorders? post market analysis is being done,right,EB? I'm sure you can post where we can find this info.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-10-15 19:46:18

I don't either like or dislike any one based on ethnicity. Keep on lying. your comments make for great comedy in the Ag. Groups. Also, your trump assumption is just more ignorance. Remember to post those ""secret"" papers you lie about so often. Also, try finding evidence for your shill gambit arguments.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-15 16:49:34

Are you racist too ? Al Sharpton ? Don't you like black people ? Not only are you a corporatist shill but you are probably a TRUMPF supporter for the coal industry and other dirty energy companies ...

The distinct properties of natural and GM cry insecticidal proteinshttp://www*tandfonline*com/doi/full/10*1080/02648725*2017*1357295

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-15 14:03:59

Nonsense.

They examined no data. They made a political statement about a technology that was outside their field. Many scientists have spoken out against this sleazy PR stunt, as I have written elsewhere on this thread.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-15 13:58:43

The luxuriate letter was a sleazy PR stunt. These scientists, none of which is expert in the field of GMO agriculture and yellow rice, signed on to this stunt with out examining one scrap of data to support their political statement.

Other scientists say:

“The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposedauthority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear tohave relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out.Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physicalsciences and professor of statistics at the University of California,Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of thesignatories: ‘1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists,41 doctors’. He added that science is ‘about evidence not authority.What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science issupposed to be “show me”, not “trust me”… Nobel prize or not.'”http://gmwatch*org/news/latest-news/17077

"Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-15 13:56:24

There is no twenty years of safe use. That is disingenuous industry spin.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-10-15 13:50:47

Yet all of those Nobel laureates are better qualified than thou and they are backed by the scientific consensus. You are backed by an incorrect prediction from 1976 and serralini. Gee, guess who most decent folks will believe.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-14 22:54:07

yet we have over 20 years of safe use and the great preponderance of scientists think you and suzuki are wrong. Perhaps it is you and suzuki who are stupid or lying.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-14 22:51:36

"Any politician or scientist who tells you these genetically engineered products are safe is either very stupid or lying." - Dr. David Suzuki (professor of genetics UBC)

Posted by anthony samsel on 2017-10-13 05:24:15

Again, That letter was written by a PR firm and sent to all living Nobel prize winners only 1/3 of them agreed to sign most in completely unrelated fields from Molecular Biology.The late George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology in 1967 and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, was one of the first scientists to speak out about the potential dangers of genetic engineering:Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering]faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth….Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors….For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.[1][1] George Wald, “The Case Against Genetic Engineering,” The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976.

Posted by Kānāwai Māmalahoe on 2017-10-12 12:15:49

“How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this [opposition to GMO food] as a ‘crime against humanity’?”

This is from a letter written by 110 Nobel Laureates, mostly in the fields of Chemistry, Medicine and Physics, to Greenpeace.

To those who are claiming unspecified health problems from GMO's: please explain how your qualifications surpass those of the 110 Nobel laureates.

Posted by DaveInKS on 2017-10-11 12:17:38

Another article with no links to any scientific articles "researchers in the US" , why not to name authors and where their papers were published ?

Also, it will be important to add the results and endpoints of the toxicological studies needed for registration. fish, birds, mice, chickens, cattle etc, etc. at what point these proteins become toxic? and how that translates to plant tissue amounts, all this information is public

Posted by Aj on 2017-10-10 21:31:28

Really??? Opening with an ignorant shill gambit??? Pathetic. Remember, correlation isn't causation. Got any of those mystery papers to cite?

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-10 20:22:39

I see Eric Bjerregaard, the first Monsanto troll has arrived on scene... Where are the rest of Monsanto's flying monkeys ? Cue the flying monkey music from the Wizard of Oz ...lol

Posted by anthony samsel on 2017-10-10 18:43:49

Absolute nonsense. If any of this were true. We would have seen many problems show up and farmers would no longer buy BT crops. The truth is that the BT protein has no effect on critters,us, with acid stomachs. Thus it is digested just like steak or beans. latham is just another wacktivist.

Posted by Eric Bjerregaard on 2017-10-10 15:31:18

About this Blog

This blog’s mission is to make the issues that rural America is grappling with part of national discourse. more